"Perhaps one of the chief charms of woman lies precisely in the fact that they are dishonorable, i.e., that they are relatively uncivilized. In the midst of all the puerile repressions and inhibitions that hedge them round, they continue to show a gipsy spirit. No genuine woman ever gives a hoot for law if law happens to stand in the way of her private interest. She is essentially an outlaw, a rebel, what H. G. Wells calls a nomad. The boons of civilization are so noisily cried up by sentimentalists that we are all apt to overlook its disadvantages. Intrinsically, it is a mere device for regimenting men. Its perfect symbol is the goose-step. The most civilized man is simply that man who has been most successful in caging and harnessing his honest and natural instincts-that is, the man who has done most cruel violence to his own ego in the interest of the commonweal. The value of this commonweal is always overestimated. What is it at bottom? Simply the greatest good to the greatest number—of petty rogues, ignoramuses and poltroons."I find it fascinating to see that prior to the feminist era, Mencken correctly identified the intrinsically anti-civilizational nature of female behavior, which stems from female solipcisim. This is particularly striking because most men believe, due to the effects of female demands on, and expectations of, them, that women are a civilizing force. I, too, once assumed and believed this; not until I began to consider the situation from a macro perspective rather than an individual one did I begin to understand the difference between the "domesticizing" and "civilizing" impulses.
Here is the great dichotomy: women are needed to domesticize men. Men, on the other hand, are needed to civilize women. Both are good and necessary pursuits, but it is extremely important to not conflate the two very different concepts.
Of course, we who are instinctive and emotional rebels, who find ourselves choked up when Les Miserables breaks into "Do You Hear the People Sing" or Zack de la Rocha repeats his defiant litany in "Killing in the Name Of", can't help but admire the female spirit, even as we lament its unleashing and its contribution to the ongoing decline of Western civilization.
39 comments:
"Simply the greatest good to the greatest number"
That's certainly the liberal view on civilization.
If women were in charge of civilization...we'd still be in the caves.
Here is the great dichotomy: women are needed to domesticize men. Men, on the other hand, are needed to civilize women.
Well, there's your mind-blower for the morning. I always assumed the former was not a good thing and that the latter was the other way around.
Incidentally, there are a few of us who value rule of law, but overall Mencken makes an excellent point.
If women were in charge of civilization...we'd still be in the caves.
And you'd still get in trouble for leaving your socks on the cave floor.
You tear up at a song from Les Miserables? I tear up at the thought of being subjected to watching it, maybe as a torture technique by my worst enemies.
And you'd still get in trouble for leaving your socks on the cave floor.
Is that before or after we bonk you on the head with our clubs and drag you off for hot caveman sex?
By the way, I wonder if anyone's given thought to doing a Game-themed radio call-in show. I listen to Dr. Laura -- a very popular show -- and while she's male-friendly and mostly gives good advice, one area in which she consistently stumbles is Game-related topics. Yesterday, a 21 year-old male called her show and was asking for advice about dating. Seems every woman he meets and makes a date with cancels at the last moment, usual by text. He didn't know why, but you could hear by the sound of his voice exactly why it was happening. He was basically a puppy: very nice, very sweet, and very dweeby. Dr. Laura advised him to look for a nice girl in his church, which is her usual advice (that, or have a friend introduce him to a nice girl). However, had he asked someone like Vox, he would have gotten an entirely different, and much more useful, answer.
A Game-related call-in show has the potential to be huge. One reason Dr. Laura is so popular is that she's a bit controversial -- to the point that even people who hate her will listen -- but somehow she manages to win converts that way, too. I think a Game show (heh) would be popular for the same reason, and it could potentially lead to a lot of people -- men and women alike -- to take the red pill.
Men created civilization and therefore men civilize women. The Manosphere exists because men forgot their role.
Well, there's your mind-blower for the morning. I always assumed the former was not a good thing and that the latter was the other way around.
George Clooney is a good example of the undomesticated man. The expectations of being a husband and a father help a man grow up and become responsible. But this is domesticity, not civilization.
The woman who knows her role and makes a home for her family is civilized. The woman who does not, and who spawns barbarians while living off the resources of others, or who plays the role of an undomesticated man, is anti-civilized.
This "women are civilizers" meme is big in conservative and christianese circles. Switching it to domesticaters is a very nice wedge.
The desire of man to have a woman and keep her safe in a home and provide for her and their children leads men to create civilization. So there's a sense in which women civilize men, but it's completely passive -- men do civilized things because women exist.
Where people went wrong was in thinking of it as an active thing: women civilize men by their direct influence on them. That doesn't seem that different, but it is. It's the difference between, "I want that woman so I need a place to keep her," and, "I want that woman and she says she needs a white picket fence." In the modern thinking, women demand civilization and men go along. In traditional thinking, women are just kind of out there fluttering around like helpless birds, and men develop civilization as a cage in which to safeguard them.
As we put more and more women in charge of civilization by putting them in leadership positions, we're starting to see which of those is actually true.
My husband sent me a link to a place called Vision Forum yesterday. The toys in it, especially for boys, are amazing (The girls are very good as well). It also has a whole bunch of homemaking information in it that goes back to canning and making homemade bread.
I was looking at it some more this morning and found this book called Queen of the Home. The Foreword and Thanks are here and get at what Vox is talking about. Just reading the foreward brought a tear. It's nice to know that there are many more women out there who love being wives and mothers and don't see it as something strange or beneath us.
She even calls her husband the King of their home.
Of course, we who are instinctive and emotional rebels, who find ourselves choked up when Les Miserables breaks into "Do You Hear the People Sing" or Zack de la Rocha repeats his defiant litany in "Killing in the Name Of", can't help but admire the female spirit, even as we lament its unleashing and its contribution to the ongoing decline of Western civilization.
pls disinclude me in your admiration of the "female spirit" of narcissistic, sinister rebellion against all that is good
Daniel Amneus's "The Garbage Generation" differentiated between "domestication" and "civilizing", refuting George Gilder's "Men and Marriage" on that point, and defended the patriarchy. It was eye-opening.
The expectations of being a husband and a father help a man grow up and become responsible. But this is domesticity, not civilization.
I'd always used "civilizing" instead of "domesticating," because the latter (to me) sounded disrespectful, like it involved breaking a man's spirit and making him into something like a farm animal. But if it really has to do with motivating him to be a responsible husband and father, then I'll switch to "domesticating."
Of course, we who are instinctive and emotional rebels, who find ourselves choked up when Les Miserables breaks into "Do You Hear the People Sing" or Zack de la Rocha repeats his defiant litany in "Killing in the Name Of", can't help but admire the female spirit, even as we lament its unleashing and its contribution to the ongoing decline of Western civilization.
pls disinclude me in your admiration of the "female spirit" of narcissistic, sinister rebellion against all that is good.
Whatever, dude.
A quotation by H. L. Mencken is nice, but what data supports women being "less civilized" than men?
If they are less law-abiding this should be easy to notice in the public statistics for tax evasion, speeding while driving, etc.
The charge seems off because so much of the manosphere is founded on complaints about how Team Woman has "stacked the law" rather than avoided obeying the law.
Majority female urban welfare slums don't show much domestication or civilization.
@ David V.S.
A quotation by H. L. Mencken is nice, but what data supports women being "less civilized" than men?
If they are less law-abiding this should be easy to notice in the public statistics for tax evasion, speeding while driving, etc.
The charge seems off because so much of the manosphere is founded on complaints about how Team Woman has "stacked the law" rather than avoided obeying the law.
I think a round of definitions is in order. How do you define "civilization"?
Vox, can you expound further on the differences between the "domesticizing" and "civilizing" impulses? Especially providing examples of domesticizing. I have somewhat of a grasp of what you mean, but I'm having trouble identifying and classifying these ideas in practice.
Whatever, dude
well replied dood!
if you cant be as smart, at least be more stoopid!
lets go get pizza and you can show me your new Slayer discs!
dood!
like whatEVER
pls disinclude me in your admiration of the "female spirit" of narcissistic, sinister rebellion against all that is good
Certainly. You may consider yourself officially uncounted.
I thought that woman's proclivity to be both compliant (to the point of obsequiousness) and also rebellious (to the point of self-destruction) was just another aspect of womans dualistic nature (which is why they are more prone to suffering from Bi-Polar Disorder, Manic-Depression, whilst men suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Autism; women are dualistic, men are singular).
I have an interesting dynamic in my family. The women proclaim the feminist type of imperative in conversation. Yet, in practice they live the traditional conservative wife and mother. Not completely. But, the disconnect between what they claim as a member of Team Woman vs. what they actually do as a wife and mother are diametrically opposed. Is this a unique phenomenon? It may be a uniquely Midwestern thing. I don't know.
It is almost like they are two parts of a whole and it was designed for them to need each to excell. Weird :)
All is poison, at some dose. Water will kill you at the right amount. About getting the right balance between right and wrong? Another impossible question. Do you want to mine the gold or hold it as an asset. You can't do both.
We have merely chosen to sell, and cheaply at that, the gold that was the backbone of the nation, freedom, ourselves, family, God. And we have spent it. The capital we had held, as one of the various ores we had found. Buy, sell, hold. Social, political, economic. Is your goal to hold to God or to man, to your nation or to wealth, to your freedom or to some promised gifts. We have chosen, that is all. No milk was spilled, so hold the tears, it was simply sold to the lowest bidders.
The Indians with a handful of beads... could have warned us about this. Actually, they did.
redlegben: Women are nuts. That covers it all, don't it?
Women are a socialising force, not a civilising one.
@ Stingray
Vision Forum is good stuff. Try their Jonathan Park CDs. I have their founder, Doug Phillips, in my blogroll.
- SSM
Of course, we who are instinctive and emotional rebels, who find ourselves choked up when Les Miserables breaks into "Do You Hear the People Sing"
The French revolution chokes me up all right.
Mass executions in pursuit of an all-powerful state, the Assignat and the inevitable prohibition of gold as money, the invasion of every other nation from Spain to Russia, from the Netherlands to Naples, atheism as a state religion.
Do you choke up for the Bolsheviks as well? Lenin? Trotsky? Stalin? How about Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot? All of those revolutionaries followed the path laid down by the 18th century French revolution, one way or another, but always with the mass executions.
I have never understood the romaticization of mass murder. Edmund Burke was right. Robspierre got what he deserved, as did Sainte Juste and the rest of the murderous crew. But not nearly soon enough.
Now returning to the OP - it is obvious that men are needed to civilize women. An inspection of those parts of the US that are run by women is demonstration. Women's known in-group preference is 4 times more likely than men's, yielding a partial explanation. Women would rather favor other women, the effects can be seen in many personnel offices (HR) today.
The pagan Horatius in "Horatius at the Gate" is more civilized than many moderns. Far more so, in fact.
------------------------
No one of signficance
The French revolution chokes me up all right.
You have the wrong revolution....
Certainly. You may consider yourself officially uncounted.
coming from you, o Venereal Disease of Superintelligence, that is favor indeed
Women display self-interest in their behavior, and that is anti-civilization, however that is not intentional. The array of advantages/disadvantages exhibited by women favors a civilized environment whether they show any capacity at all to support it. While men are clearly advantaged by the environment of chaos. If the world goes Mad Max then it's men who will thrive in that environment, and not women.
@The Social Pathologist
I have to agree. Men are less social than women. I wrote a long post on a different site about the tendencies of group formation between men and women.
Men make groups in which the individual members shore up any weaknesses in the unit. The military is a great example.
Women (even when unnecessary to do so) will accept *anyone* with a complimentary mindset into their groups.
However, this points out the weak spot in the idea that women civilise men: male groups are concentrated on a goal, female groups are concentrated on concordance. Therefore, male groups are willing to take on plenty of discordant elements if those elements are focused on the same goal, while female groups are far more likely to jettison anyone who refuses to toe the line (as well as limit their total effectiveness as a unit to keep the "favoured" elements.)
Part 2, with partial information taken from anonymous@1432
Male groups, as stated above, are more focused on accomplishment than affability (the main goal of female groups). Because of this, if/when circumstances arise which require it to be so, male groups tend to be more diverse than female groups. Sometimes racially (as any taller-than-average or black child who's ever been offered a spot on a sports team sans qualification will tell you), but mostly in diversity of size, worldview, etc. If you've ever watched the formation of a male "gang" (whether malign or benign), you'll notice that the kids don't care if they're the same height, size, level of intelligence or race as long as they can "play their position". The leader is almost *never* the tallest child, the smartest child or the toughest child; in fact, the leader is usually the "middle" child (tall but not as tall as "Stretch", smart but not as smart as "Egghead", etc.) The "talented" kids will defer to the Jack-of-all-trades and put in their work as necessary. And, when necessary, they can and will have their opposition to an idea heard and followed (to the point that various dissenting members of a boy gang will pick and choose what to do with the gang on a regular basis without fear of ostracisation, as long as they know that their individual contributions can't be readily replaced by outsiders.)
Girl gangs, OTOH, are monolithic.
Girl gangs almost always look alike
*Boy gangs see nothing wrong with having a 6' tall member and a 5' tall member at the same time, or having 2-3 overweight kids in a group of average sized kids. In girl gangs, given enough people to allow turnover, everyone eventually resembles each other in shape. Boy gangs are also less stringent on racial characteristics (they don't care if there's already a black kid in the group, but the fastest kid is Filipino.) Girl gangs, however, when they *do* keep a person of a different race in the group, expect her to be her stereotype (shy Chinese girl, loud and Sassy black girl, fearless and boundary-free white girl, etc.)
Girl gangs have a leader Who Must Be Obeyed.
If you talk back or reject the boy gang's leader's ideas, you can receive some leeway (assuming that the leader isn't a sociopath or a charismatic idiot.) Try it with the Queen Bee of any girl gang. You'll be out on your ass in a minute (ever wonder why there are so many women out there who "can't get along with other women"? This is the answer in a nutshell.) If the leader of a boy gang tells the rest of the group to stand across the street from a blazing house, at least a couple of the boys will defer (if the smart one is convincing enough, he may mention the idea of explosions and get all of them to leave.) Conversely, if the Queen Bee is going to a party, *everyone* is going to that party if they want to stay in the group.
I believe this falls in your area of interest:
Game Theory and Divorce
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/01/16/game-theory-and-divorce/
The exception to this rule, however, involves sex. In fact, the rules become inverted.
When boy gangs are on the prowl, their "specialists" find themselves on the wayside. The tall guy, the charming guy and the smart guy are either ignored or left out of the proceedings altogether. Why? Because any group of men that isn't made up of complete fucking morons realises that
1. Girls like guys who stand out.
2. Girls, being monolithic, assume that any guy in a group is representative of all guys.
So: smart and nerdy guy gets kicked out to avoid nerd stigma, black/Hispanic guy or charming guy gets slotted to "only when we need the swagger" events, etc. By doing so, they increase the chances of total success (instead of having *yet another week* in which Tall Paul "pulls" and leaves them in the dust, or suave Jevon uses the beta points gained by hanging out with (and trying to keep up with) white guys to get half a dozen numbers.
Girl gangs fracture as well, and for the same reasons, but with opposite reactions. When white girls decide to go "interracial", they'll often do so with a group of non-white women with opposing attributes.
For example: although they'll eventually regress to the mean, it isn't rare to see fit white women in black clubs, who were invited by and escorted by bigger black women. Or, in Japan, to see buxom white women who push out the cleavage and wear their most-hated pencil skirt when going out with less-endowed Asians. Even black women will do it, by congregating with more...expressive non-black women, then pulling the "My, those other girls sure did make fools of themselves when the free bar opened up. I need a better class of friends, but I still have to work with them. Oh, well. Oh, my name? It's S. Denise. The S stands for Shaquanna but that name is *so* ghetto..." By differentiating themselves from the crowd, they think that they'll have a better opportunity to avoid assortative mating (the communalism-hypergamy conundrum also solved, in a nutshell.)
And, to tie things together, this is what eliminates the majority of women from being civilisation builders. To have a functional civilisation, you need groups of people with disparate technical skills and attributes to live together in harmony.
Boy gangs become boy groups. Boy groups become boy clans. And when they become men, those men make civilisations. This is based on the (infinitely reproduceable and infinitely identifiable) idea that men will always follow the leader. Always. Even in situations in which their leader is inept, corrupt or insane, they will follow the leader as long as **the goals of the organisation are being met**
Girl gangs, however, never make it to the group stage because girls think of themselves as "special little snowflakes". If an initial gang is made up of "special little snowflakes", it can't prosper barring utter need or supreme levels of charisma/competence, because a group of any sort needs an identifiable leader and "snowflakes" can't be led (at best, they can be coerced to pursue the interest of their 'leader' *when* their leader's goals mesh with their own *and* the means towards those goals is aggreable if not pleasant.) But, girls don't like to be lead by their *peers*, they like to be led by their *superiors*. Piggybacking on Part 2, the girl gang leader is always the prettiest or best-connected girl (again, barring deprivation or lack.) When Boy Gang 1 meets Boy Gang 2 and there are no triggers for confrontation (IOW, no sex), they will blend resources (as it never actually *hurts* to have a few extra eyes around in any situation.) When Girl Gang 1 meets Girl Gang 2, it's like herding cats. The girls will almost always begin the subconscious ranking of "Who is hottest, who is weakest?" (IOW, who's a threat to future breeding and who isn't?), and things begin to fall apart from there barring total deprivation. Because, ha ha, *all women* consider themselves to be the alpha female and any attempts at submission or obeisance to another woman is temporary at best (unless the girls are sexually "queer", as in Kinsey 4 or higher.) For men with provisions, sex is something to pursue when all of their ducks are lined up in a row; for women, sex is something to pursue whenever they need or want something. For men, sublimation of personal desires for the benefit of the group is an effective long-term strategy (even if their sole purpose of joining the group *is* to gain access to women.) For women, pursuing the ideals of any female-led or designed group is an effective way to benefit sexually (even ugly girls understand it instinctively, as any confrontation with a boy gang will always leave a few leftovers {nerdy guy, lanky guy, etc.}, who may not be good enough for the Queen Bee but who understand the language of men and women. "Dick stands up? Dick goes in? Dick goes in!")
Final Part-in the end, sexual impulses and the levels of repression/indulgence are what differentiates a "civilisation" from "a group of people what resemble each other and get along, innit?" Repression is *easy* for men, because our drives are strong enough to act as a intermittent, albeit high-pitched buzz in the back of our heads (when your libido is chronically firing a hard burst of, "We should get some", in hourly bursts, it's easy for *most men* to take a minute to clear their heads before jumping on an available partner.) Repression, however, is *difficult* for women because their sexuality is an incessant low-pitched hum. When they meet someone who sets off sparks, they will almost always look for those sparks to be quenched as quickly as possible. Men may always seen ready, but women (when aroused) are always insistent. Compare the boots and hollers that a Naomi Campbell or Marilyn Monroe received in their time, to the neverending roar that the Stones, Frank Sinatra, help, *Justin Bieber* receives from their fans. Compare the men at a strip club (who, even when attending a hole in the wall or a private performance, know to only touch if allowed) to the women (who grab as they like, scratch as they like, and yes *will pull off acts suited for Dancing Bear* if no one thinks to stop them.) At their base, women are solipistic, "Every Woman For Herself, Because I'm The Best And I'll Be Just Fine"-minded, "Cut Open The Golden Egg-Laying Goose"-oriented piles of need. And selfishness dooms all people.
Or, even simpler
Men-Do Less For Yourself, Get Rewards Later.
Women-Do Less For Everyone Else, Get Rewards Now.
Which ideaology lends itself towards survival in fat times and lean times? Which ideaology is more likely to turn fat times *into* lean times?
But will we ever once again get over the assumption that women are perpetually getting the short end of the stick? I.e., in the Mencken quote: In the midst of all the puerile repressions and inhibitions that hedge them round, they continue to show a gipsy spirit.
Regardless the context, women always repressed, always inhibited, always held back from what should sensibly be theirs for the taking. Is this not an indication of Mencken's egalitarian assumptions that all that defines manhood is also exactly what defines womanhood?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.